No, nessun rimborso per la somma già versata per assicurarsi la location, nonostante il suo futuro marito nel frattempo era morto. Questo è quello che si sarebbe sentita rispondere Zoe Vandeloo, che insieme a Diego Hernandez, poi tragicamente scomparso prima delle nozze, aveva deciso di sposarsi nella location per matrimoni e grandi eventi Posey Meadows, nelle vicinanze di Austin, in Texas.
Le nozze per la coppia erano in programma per il prossimo 20 novembre, ma questo giorno di festa non si potrà celebrare, dal momento che alla fine dello scorso aprile Hernandez ha perso la vita all’improvviso. La donna è stata così costretta ad annullare l’evento, ma non si aspettava certamente di dover affrontare una battaglia legale per vedere riconosciuto il diritto a essere risarcita per la cifra versata per la location.
La coppia aveva, infatti, già dato circa 16.000 dollari per il luogo in cui avrebbe voluto sposarsi. Quando allora Vandeloo ha comunicato alla proprietà di Posey Meadows di voler ottenere indietro la somma già versata, la proprietaria Julie Campbell, stando a quanto visionato da KSAT, avrebbe proposto come opzioni l’utilizzo della location in un’altra data o per un altro evento oppure un parziale rimborso nel caso in cui fosse riuscita ad affittare la location per il giorno in cui era stata tenuta occupata per la coppia.
The U.S. midterm elections come after aggressive efforts by both Democrats and Republicans to redraw district maps in their favor, a practice known as gerrymandering.
The ad opens with James Talarico, the Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate from Texas, seated at a desk, apparently rewriting the Book of Genesis from the Old Testament. “In the beginning,” Talarico says, hunched over as he writes, “God was nonbinary. And was not Christian. And God said: ‘Let there be six genders’; and there were.”
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) sued OpenAI and its CEO Sam Altman on Friday, accusing the company of failing to warn consumers about the potential dangers from its AI models. The lawsuit alleges the ChatGPT maker is running afoul of a Texas consumer protection law and kids’ online safety law, underscoring warnings about the…
Today's guest is Ted Brown, the Libertarian Party candidate for U.S. Senate in Texas. Brown is facing off against Republican Ken Paxton and Democrat James Talarico in a closely contested race. Brown received more than 267,000 votes in his 2024 Senate campaign and is now challenging both major parties on their commitment to individual liberty. He argues that Republicans have abandoned limited government while Democrats increasingly embrace economic policies that undermine the free market.
Nick Gillespie talks with Brown about Paxton's corruption scandals, Talarico's hostility toward billionaires, and why Texas ranks poorly on personal freedom despite its business-friendly reputation. Brown makes the case for returning to an Ellis Island–style immigration system, cutting federal spending to confront the $40 trillion national debt, and ending America's military involvement in the Middle East. They also discuss abortion rights, government surveillance, online age-verification laws, and how regulations drive up the cost of healthcare. Brown explains what it will take to rebuild the Libertarian Party and why he believes a senator could accomplish more by stopping bad legislation than by passing new laws.
Neil Bush and Wayne Thorburn back Talarico over Ken Paxton less than two weeks before midterm elections.
Two prominent Republican voices in Texas have announced their support in recent days for Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico over Republican Ken Paxton, less than two weeks before the midterm elections, in which Donald Trump’s party risks losing control of Congress.
Neil Bush, son of former President George H.W. Bush (1989-1993) and brother of former President George W. Bush (2001-2009), and Wayne Thorburn, former executive director of the Texas Republican Party, publicly said Talarico, a Presbyterian seminarian and former teacher, is a figure with the right values to represent Texas in the Senate.
Bush even said he had already cast his early vote for Talarico. Both cited the Democrat’s “character,” and Bush went further, directly attacking Paxton and expressing his “concern” about his conduct and track record.
Paxton, the state’s current attorney general, has a lengthy history of corruption and fraud allegations that even led him to face an impeachment trial in 2023, initiated by his own party in the state Legislature, where he was acquitted. Bush also criticized Paxton’s close ties to Trump, whom he accused of causing “enormous damage” to the Republican Party.
Neil Bush, brother of George W. Bush and Jeb Bush, has broken his longstanding silence on politics to back Democrat James Talarico over Ken Paxton.@Timodc reacts: "Hopefully there are going to be a lot of Neil Bushes out there over the next two weeks." pic.twitter.com/T27wUmJXpw
“I am concerned about a political culture in which loyalty to one person takes precedence over loyalty to principles and in which those in power begin to believe they no longer have to be held accountable,” said Bush, an energy industry businessman.
In 2015, a Collin County grand jury formally indicted Paxton on securities fraud charges. The case was closed in 2024 with a pretrial intervention agreement, without Paxton pleading guilty.
In addition, the Justice Department investigated him over allegations of corruption and abuse of power. The investigations did not result in charges and were closed in the final weeks of Joe Biden’s administration (2021-2025).
BREAKING: George W. Bush's brother Neil just dropped a BOMB on MAGA by proudly announcing that he voted for James Talarico in the Texas Senate race.
This just gave Republicans a flashing green light to vote blue…
Trump’s decision to endorse Paxton over Sen. John Cornyn in the Republican primary drew widespread criticism from lawmakers and party strategists. The race for Texas’ Senate seat, which the state has not awarded to a Democrat since 1988, has become one of the most important contests of this election cycle.
More than US$500 million has been spent on advertising in the race overall, according to data from the firm AdImpact cited by U.S. media outlets.
Polls, which for weeks showed Talarico leading Paxton by a few percentage points, have shown the gap narrowing in recent days and now put the Democrat 1.5 points ahead of the attorney general, according to RealClearPolitics.
More than four million Latinos have turned 18 since the last midterm elections in 2022 and will be able to vote for the first time in the midterms on November 3. For years, Latino advocacy groups have pointed to the community’s growing political potential, noting that every 30 seconds, a Latino comes of age in the United States.
One of Texas’s most prominent personal injury lawyers has endorsed state Rep. James Talarico (D) in the Lone Star State’s widely watched Senate race. Thomas J. Henry, a fixture of Texas TV ads and billboards, posted a video to the social platform X on Thursday announcing he would support Talarico’s candidacy. “The reason I’m supporting…
The main investigative unit of the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has been vigorously promoting on social media an effort it considers crucial in the final weeks before the midterms: pursuing alleged large-scale election fraud by noncitizens — a claim that has obsessed President Donald Trump despite a lack of evidence.
The mobilization of American voters in the midterm elections is already making an impact with fewer than two weeks to go until Election Day on November 3. Early voting, which has begun in more than 30 states, is setting records in some of them. More than 16 million voters have already cast their ballots, most of them by mail.
Charisma or cash: to win an election, candidates need at least one of those two factors. With two weeks to go until the U.S. midterm elections, Republicans are throwing everything they have into the closest states to try to climb back in polls that are unfavorable to them. They have the invaluable help of the vast sums Donald Trump raises through his Super PAC, the political action committee that pools donations coming from the ultraconservative MAGA movement.
People protest the plans by President Donald Trump’s administration to build a section of the border wall at the Big Bend National Park, in Study Butte, Texas, in August.
School resource officers (SROs) in Texas referred tens of thousands of elementary and middle schoolers for prosecution for relatively minor misconduct over the last decade, a news investigation found.
An analysis by The New York Times and the San Antonio Express-News reported that, as the number of SROs in Texas grew, children in Texas ages 10 to 13 were referred to prosecution for misbehaving in school more than 47,000 times since 2014. A referral doesn't necessarily result in charges being filed, but each one represents a minor being taken into police custody and put in contact with the criminal justice system, which can have long-lasting educational, emotional, and financial impacts for students and their families.
"Most of the students were accused of minor offenses, like making threats, using cannabis vapes or lashing out at classmates or teachers," the papers reported. "Few caused serious physical harm."
Among the examples cited by the Times and Express-News were an 11-year-old who bumped into a school counselor, a 10-year-old who said he saw someone on campus with a weapon, and a 10-year-old who kicked an assistant principal after his cellphone was taken away.
In one case, a 12-year-old girl who refused to go to the principal's office was handcuffed, arrested, and driven to the school police headquarters. "When she would not put her hand on a fingerprint machine, officers twisted her opposite arm behind her back until she screamed and complied, according to body camera footage," the outlets reported.
The analysis found that referrals of children 10 to 13 increased by a greater percentage than referrals of older students. (Children under 10 cannot be prosecuted under Texas law; many other states don't set a minimum age for delinquency.)
The two outlets published another joint investigation in May on how SROs in Texas schools have used heavy-handed tactics, including Tasers and pepper spray, against students over seemingly minor misconduct.
The findings mirror other recent studies. A report published in July by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Iowa found that, while SROs were placed in Iowa schools to keep students safe from violence, the threat they most commonly dealt with was illicit vaping.
The number of police in schools nationally dramatically increased in recent years, growing by 23 percent at high schools, middle schools, and elementary schools between 2018 and 2021, largely under the justification of stopping mass shootings and handling violent situations.
Organizations like the National Association of School Resource Officers (NASRO) say that carefully selected, well-trained officers act as a filter and decrease arrests by building strong relationships within the school with staff and students.
Civil liberties groups and disability advocates have long argued that increases in school police and zero-tolerance policies for petty disturbances have fueled the "school-to-prison" pipeline and led to disproportionate enforcement against minorities and students with disabilities. Those groups have been aided by viral news stories of policearresting and assaulting school children.
Following the police killing of George Floyd in 2020 and national calls for police reform, several major school districts across the country ended their SRO programs.
However, several states that experienced horrific school shootings, like Florida and Texas, moved in the opposite direction, passing laws that required police officers or armed guardians in public schools.
A 2020 Reason investigation described how Florida schools had become a high-stakes experiment in policing after Florida more than doubled the number of SROs across the state following the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in 2018. A study published in 2020found that after the increase, the number of Florida school arrests—which had been declining for years—suddenly started to rise. There was also a sharp increase in the use of physical restraint against students.
A 2021 working paper by the Annenberg Institute at Brown University, which billed itself as the broadest and most rigorous examination at the school level of how SROs impact student outcomes, found that while SROs "do effectively reduce some forms of violence in schools," they did not prevent school shootings or gun-related incidents.
Another study by researchers at the University of Maryland and the firm Westat, who studied several dozen middle and high schools in California, found that increasing the number of SROs led to both immediate and persistent increases in the number of drug and weapon offenses and the number of suspensions and expulsions of students.
Before running for U.S. representative, Bobby Pulido had already toured the communities in his Texas border district. He spent 31 years as a tejano and regional Mexican singer, performing solo and with his father, the legendary musician Roberto Pulido. In South Texas everyone knows the performer: they grew up with his hit Desvelado, they danced and fell in love to Se murió de amor. But for the past year Pulido has shown a new side—one some support without hesitation and others are still weighing as an option on the midterm ballot: that of politician.
The warnings began circulating on Facebook groups in Laredo, Texas, two days before Mexican authorities confirmed them. Relatives of detainees at the GEO Rio Grande detention center spoke of sickness, neglect and a man who had allegedly died after more than a month without proper medical care.
Last March on Instagram, Students for Life President Kristan Hawkins posted a photo showing her and two other members of the Virginia-based group standing outside Space Center Houston. According to the captions, Hawkins and her fellow activists, one of whom was holding a mobile phone, were "ordering abortion pills undercover."
A lawsuit filed last week in Harris County, which includes Houston, describes that Instagram post as "nothing more than a publicity stunt." The lawsuit, which aims to deploy a Texas abortion law championed by Students for Life against the organization, is also a publicity stunt. But while it may be effective by that measure, it faces legal challenges that will be hard to overcome.
The lawsuit, which a Texas woman who opposes her state's abortion ban filed under the pseudonym Maria Puerto with help from the reproductive rights group Amplify Legal, is supposed to highlight the vagueness and broad scope of House Bill 7, a 2025 law that authorizes private civil action to enforce state restrictions on "abortion-inducing" drugs. But Puerto's attempted act of legal jiu-jitsu seems too clever by half, relying on a dubious reading of the statute to seek "monetary compensation" it does not authorize and thereby punish anti-abortion activists for constitutionally protected advocacy.
H.B. 7, also known as the Woman and Child Protection Act, says "a person may not manufacture or distribute an abortion-inducing drug in this state" or "mail, transport, deliver, prescribe, or provide an abortion-inducing drug in any manner to or from any person or location in this state." Those prohibitions, it says, "may be enforced only through a qui tam action" against a "person" who "violates" or "intends to violate" them.
Any "person" other than a state or local official can qualify as a "relator" authorized to bring such an action. The relator can seek injunctive relief and "an amount of not less than $100,000 for each violation," plus "costs and reasonable attorney's fees." A successful relator generally receives $10,000 of that "amount," with the rest going to a "charitable organization" of his choice.
As a "person" who is not a government official, Puerto meets H.B. 7's minimal test for standing. And although H.B. 7 precludes lawsuits against pregnant women who obtain "an abortion-inducing drug," Puerto says Hawkins and the other activists "are not pregnant and were not pregnant" at the time of the Instagram post. So far, so good. But although the lawsuit asserts that Hawkins et al. "openly and flagrantly violated" the law's prohibitions, it does not explain how.
A photo accompanying a recent Mother Jonesprofile of Hawkins shows her and her social media coordinator, Lydia Taylor Davis, outside Space Center Houston during their "abortion-pill 'sting' stunt." Another Mother Jones photo shows Hawkins holding a mobile phone displaying what Puerto's lawsuit describes as "an order confirmation."
Judging from the Mother Jones account, it is not clear whether that description is accurate. "The scheme rapidly went off the rails," Amy Littlefield writes. "The plan was to purchase pills from a couple of services, with Hawkins posing as a male abuser while Davis pretended to be a 16-year-old—all to try to portray mail-order suppliers as reckless and dangerous. For reasons even she couldn't explain, Hawkins chose the fake name 'Wanda' as her male-abuser alter ego. But when Davis input her information, she hit a snag."
Davis was trying to order pills from the Massachusetts Medication Abortion Access Project. But according to Littlefield, that organization "had blocked Davis in its system after Students for Life teased the sting operation on social media." Hawkins "attempted to save the stunt by placing her own order, but 'Wanda' accidentally gave her age as 15," which was below the supplier's minimum age, Littlefield says. "Now a security guard was wandering over to tell them they couldn't film. Having set out to show that telemedicine services don't screen their clients, they inadvertently proved the opposite."
Puerto "will need proof that the Students for Life leaders actually obtained or intended to obtain the pills," abortion law scholar Mary Ziegler notes in Slate. "The activists may argue that the post was not in earnest, and that no one involved ever seriously intended to bring pills into Texas."
Even assuming that Hawkins et al. successfully ordered abortion pills, that conduct by itself does not fit the language of H.B. 7, which applies to people who "distribute" such drugs or who "mail, transport, deliver, prescribe, or provide" them "to or from any person or location in this state." That language encompasses out-of-state suppliers, which raises obvious concerns about extraterritorial application of Texas law. But on its face, the prohibition does not cover someone who simply orders abortion pills.
Puerto's lawyer, Amplify Legal attorney Molly Duane, argues that Hawkins et al. could be covered by the statute's reference to transportation. "What the statute says is that transporting abortion drugs from one location to another within the state is a violation of H.B. 7," Duane toldThe Texas Tribune. "By the plain language of the statute, this would seem to be a violation. This is the problem with writing such a confusing and vague law."
Under that theory, however, Hawkins, Davis, and the two other activists named in the lawsuit violated H.B. 7 only if they 1) successfully ordered abortion pills, 2) took delivery of them, and 3) subsequently moved them to another location within Texas. The lawsuit alleges only that they "ordered abortion pills, apparently multiple times." According to The Texas Tribune, Duane and Puerto "are hoping that the lawsuit will eventually surface more about what the defendants did with the abortion pills once they ordered them."
The lawsuit faces another obstacle. H.B. 7 does not apply to "speech or conduct protected by the First Amendment." Hawkins et al.'s efforts to show how easily state abortion bans can be circumvented certainly seem to fall into that category. "Students for Life may stress that the case targets their political speech about abortion," which is "protected under the First Amendment," Ziegler notes.
Those are not the only puzzling aspects of the lawsuit. Puerto, a 26-year-old single mother of two young children, emphasizes that she "had no choice but to continue" those pregnancies because she did not "have access to transportation or the economic resources to pay for travel out of state." The lawsuit devotes 11 paragraphs to describing the burdens imposed by her state's denial of "true reproductive rights," which she argues justifies some sort of compensation.
All of this seems legally irrelevant under H.B. 7, which does not require a relator to allege damages of any sort, let alone damages stemming from the abortion ban it aims to reinforce. "With nowhere else to turn for assistance," the lawsuit says, "Ms. Puerto is seeking financial compensation" from Hawkins et al. "in the amount of $459,782—the average cost of raising two children from birth to age 18 in the state of Texas."
Although H.B. 7 sets a minimum award of $100,000, the lawsuit notes, "there is no cap on the monetary compensation owed a relator." But the law does not describe H.B. 7 awards as "monetary compensation" for injuries allegedly suffered by the relator.
The statute's only reference to "compensatory damages" deals with lawsuits filed against H.B. 7 relators under "clawback provisions" of other states that have tried to thwart such litigation. In response to a "clawback" action, the law says, an H.B. 7 relator can seek "compensatory damages, including money damages in an amount equal to the judgment damages and costs, expenses, and reasonable attorney's fees spent in defending the action." By contrast, the bounty for proving a violation of the restrictions on abortion pills is simply "an amount."
The lawsuit itself, emphasizing the lax standards for filing a claim under H.B. 7, notes that Puerto "did not suffer an injury traceable to [the defendants'] ordering of abortion pills that can be remedied by a court." But it suggests that an award to Puerto would be appropriate given the defendants' anti-abortion activism.
The lawsuit notes that Students for Life "proudly advertised" its support for H.B. 7. Puerto complains that Hawkins et al. "ignore the immense harms and multiple deaths already attributed to Texas's cruel abortion bans" and "demean the six million Texans of reproductive age who have had their ability to decide whether and when to begin or expand a family stripped away by these bans." Whatever you make of that charge, the defendants' activism is constitutionally protected and therefore cannot support a cause of action in civil court.
"Texas is a strange place filled with vigilante statutes" that "seek to turn Texans against each other," Duane told The Texas Tribune. "But if anyone should be benefiting from these legal regimes, it's people like our client." While "putting those two things together…might be unusual," she said, "this is the situation that Texas has put its citizens in."
Depending on your perspective, you may or may not sympathize with Duane's reasoning. But it seems unlikely to pass muster as a matter of law.
Nikole Hannah-Jones says there have been only two occasions when she looked around a first-class cabin and saw that every passenger was Black. She says that when that happens, something else is going on as well.
Login
